Ultronomicon talk:To-do

I talked with Svdb, and we agreed that it would be beneficial to create a task list. Right now it just contains stuff I came up with, but please feel free to add to it and discuss list items at length.

I thought a "To-do" would be especially helpful since the Ultronomicon has grown fairly stagnant as of late. Although most of our red links are gone, it is far from complete. My hope is that this list will give us some clearer goals to work towards, and give us guidance as to what we can do in order to turn the Ultronomicon into a truly excellent reference material.

It seems a good idea... more helpful for the reader. If no one objects, I'll edit the to-do page accordingly.

I have another proposal relating to this, however. The Tactical Overview sections are not terribly accurate, it appears, as they contradict the opinions of the veteran players, such as Shiver. When Shiver's PvP guide is completed, we might want to remove the Tactical Overview sections and link to his guide instead. Valaggar 14:29, 20 April 2008 (CEST)

I think I would rather just see a "Tactical Overview" section without the "Strong/Tenuous/Weak Against" evaluations. It's not clear if these evaluations are for fights versus the AI or another human, and as Val pointed out, the current sections tend to contradict the opinions of veteran players. And such an evaluation is highly dependent on player ability (hence why you never see me on netplay), so I fear a never ending string of small edit skirmishes between experienced and amateur players (like this recent thread). In that sense, I think a paragraph or two, explaining the melee strengths, weaknesses, and general successful tactics would be sufficient for a "Tactical Overview" section. --Fyzixfighter 16:40, 21 April 2008 (CEST)

I don't think removing tactical overviews here and just linking to Shiver's guide would be good. Firstly, even if he's a veteran and even if his guide is open to scrutiny on the forum, it's his opinion which isn't subject to the kind of collective review we have here. Even veterans will favour certain styles which may skew their assessments, as happens at the top level of any competition. I don't think we need to outsource this, and outsourcing here wouldn't set a good precedent in my opinion. By all means link to his guide though.

Secondly, I don't think his guide is exhaustive, and he doesn't seem to explain everything.

Thirdly, his guide isn't likely to evolve in the same way a page here would (and this might even include the situation where we have a legitimate SC sequel). Are we to have to ask him to modify the guide every time we think of something he hasn't? Yes his guide is on a forum, but only he can modify it. And I don't think that the recognised source of information on something this central to the game should be subject to an individual's whim.

Don't take this the wrong way, it's a fine guide, but I think it was a bad idea to put it on the UQMF in the first place. I might suggest asking if he'd like to contribute here, but without being too pointed, I'm not sure that's worth it.

About the "Strong/Tenuous/Weak Against" evaluations, I agree with Fyzix on that, mostly because what's strong, tenuous or weak is ill-defined. For example, and following from recent conversation with Val, are those about damage fractions or probabilities of victory, which thresholds thereof, and how about cost effectiveness . . . ? In my opinion, better to rigorously quantify it all on Super-Melee tactics. Eventually :P --Zeracles 22:26, 21 April 2008 (CEST)